The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/20/2012OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER January TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Alan Tandy, City Manager,/��/ch SUBJECT: Generallnformation Miscellaneous News • Some good news to pass along. The Police Department has cc Part I crimes for the 2011 calendar year. Compared to 2010 th� number of Part I crimes decreased 3.4 percent. The enclosed mE charts provide additional insight into the overall decrease. • Unfortunately, trees along the bike path, specifically in the arec Truxtun, are being damaged by beavers. Rec and Parks � wrapped the trees in the area with orange fencing material in h will deter any future destruction. Pictures are enclosed. • Staff inembers took a tour of the Federal Courthouse constructioi week. The construction continues, but much of it is out of si occurring in the interior of the building. We were told the constr� the building will be completed on schedule in May. A few pic� enclosed. High Speed Rail News �° The enclosed article, fittingly titled HSR politics: The politician': public's view of the project, paints an insightful and cautious p how politics are entwined with the High Speed Rail Project to the absurdity. A poignant excerpt reads "The bottom line: the whether a democrat, independent or republican -- agrees afte at the facts and come to the same conclusion as the peer gr� others review bodies: the project should be stopped." Honorable Mayor and City Council General Information January 20, 2012 Page 2 the ledge on this incredibly wasteful, grossly mismanag� unnecessary project." � There have been rumors the Authority is suggesting to some that grade separation opportunities may be lost if opposition to thE stops it. For clarification purposes, my staff has done some initial on the bid packages and how that relates to the potential fc separations. The bottom line is the section which is planne� constructed entirely in Kern County and Bakersfield is, as the , states, "dependent on available funding remaining" and the n� grade separations and other mitigation is "dependent on a selected." Thus any promises of grade separations or othE seemingly premature at this point. A memo and supporting do are enclosed. Redevelopment News ■ Earlier this week, Moody's Investors Service issued a report statii downgraded all California Redevelopment Tax Allocation Bond is to potential financial risks resulting from the State of Californic regarding dissolution of all Redevelopment Agencies. This was a s� blanket action and not the result of any specific review of Bake our Redevelopment Agency. However, the Moody's downgra directly impact two series of tax allocation bonds issues by the A 2009 for some of the Mill Creek projects. There will be no direct impact to the City of Bakersfield as a result of the downgrade, b� (or may not) impact the secondary market value of the Series 20 bonds outstanding. Event Schedule There are multiple events at City facilities during the upcoming week: ✓ Monster X Tour Jan 21; 7:30 p.m. Rabobank Arena Tickets: $5-$21.50 ✓ Roger and Hammerstein's South Pacific Honorable Mayor and City Council General Information January 20, 2012 Page 3 ✓ Bakersfield Condors Hockey Jan 25, 27&28; 7 p.m. Rabobank Arena Tickets: $8-$25 Council Referrals � Councilmember Johnson: o PG&E Utility Relocation On Panama Lane � Councilmember Salas: o Graffiti On P Street, N/O Belle Terrace To Ming Reports For your information, we enclose the following information: ➢ The Streets Division work schedule for the week beginning Jan 23rd ➢ A letter from AT&T regarding potential changes to its programming. AT:rs:ch cc: Department Heads Roberta Gafford, City Clerk Date: January 19, 2012 BAKERSFIELD POLICE MEMORANDUM To: Alan Tandy, City Manager From: Greg Williamson, Chief of Police Subject: 201 1 Crime Stats Enclosed are the Part 1 Crime Statistics for year ending 2011. There was a 3.4�o dE overall crime from 2010; and for the sixth consecutive year, the overall crime rate than the previous year. The overall crime rate in 201 1 was 475 reported crimes per 10,000 citizens. The ovE rate for the six previous years is as follows: 2010 - 510 per 10,000 2009 - 530 per 10,000 2008 - 555 per 10,000 2007 - 558 per 10,000 2006 - 562 per 10,000 2005 - 635 per 10,000 In 201 1, there were 18 homicides, eight of which were gang-related; compared t� homicides in 2010, 12 of which were gang-related. This represents a 43.8�o decrec the department continued to focus on gang-related crime through enforcement through prevention efforts not only internally but also through the Bakersfield Safe Partnership and the faith based community. In addition to some restructuring in tr Investigations Division, which allowed for more attention to individual cases; it is b these efforts contributed to the reduction. The average number of homicides per past ten years has been 24. Additional decreases were seen in aggravated assault at 9.7�0; robbery at 14.5�0; 4.5�; and auto theft at 2.4�. An increase was experienced in the rape category which was up five offenses, fr� �ni n+„ '20 ir� 7(11 1 rli i+ �f +ho '20• oirl-�+ ��ioro ��mrni++orl h�i r+rrr�ror� co�ior� ��i � � r ': �� ,- 8AK R F'I D P I D PAR . � S �L OL C� � �, _ The following tables reflect Part 1 Crime Data, of offenses reported to the Bakersfield Police Department in Jan The data listed below is collected from our Records Management System, and then sorted into Part 1 categorie Justice reporting standards. 2011 Homicide Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault Burglary Larceny Auto Theft Jan II Feb II Mar II Aar II Ma 3 6 47 104 413 780 192 1 5 46 74 258 659 132 1 0 40 110 322 655 179 0 e � .; � . � . 3 6 48 117 332 604 155 Jun II Jul II Aua II Se 2 3 37 120 325 706 199 2 4 39 119 357 722 225 0 2 47 126 383 641 225 0 e m � .� .�• � Oct 0 e .; .� � . • � N ov 1 2 51 92 421 750 244 De � .. Q � � � Total Part One 1545 1175 1307 1291 1265 1392 1468 1424 1329 1429 1561 15i 2010 Homicide Rape Aggravated Assault Burglary Larceny Auto Theft Total Part One % Change Same Month Previous Year * Jan � �C �C 59 51 119 87 347 330 717 737 188 194 �C Mar 0 1 44 102 302 789 P►pr 1 5 57 117 307 736 � e e .� .. � .:� Jun � Ju� I� �OC �OC 58 45 58 126 155 140 359 407 358 702 717 665 Sep Oct Nov � �OOC �OOC 53 58 52 C 144 93 76 C 312 341 346 41� 588 725 645 80i 222 215 240 205 225 242 168 172 179 20: OOOOOOOOOC �OOOOOOOOOOC 1433 1406 1460 1438 1546 1455 1559 1465 1272 1393 1303 157 �� -6.5% II 5.9% II -7.1 % II -1.2% II 15.3% II 7.7% II 0.5% II -5.8% II -13.4% II -10.6% II -12.4% II 4.5' o ; �� "`,'�p 1 _ � , � Beaver Damage near Lake Truxtun :. '�'��;, : ;. ` �i`��4� \� � �� s� ,� � �ti � � y , � � / '� � �� i � � .� � � � `�� :r � �l � �,� �," + �� ', � .� � � � �, � � .a,�, . �'e � , � 7 _y�` � S . . � I ' \ � 1f ��.- J' '�� t � +/ I I � � �,�+ �� y • ' t . . � �t '."� .i � � ► i ' "'. .� "''��6 , � k � - , r `., ,� , •� , � . ' i '�. 1 Z �t. ,� . � ' ,+, � ` � � r ,- . r �, '� � 1 ,�... � . Y ,, } ' y, . , � � . \ �� - rl 1 ' , ; i, ,,',! ,`l � ��` � `�� _ � 1 � -� � '"=�?�y. �, � � ; � �, ,'�„ � �/' ` � � T � �'-� y I � . X/ ��,�� ; f � . :, �� y +� k � 1 , �, .��C . ;t„� � , ,� �,.� � ,�r� � ' `'� r�b_ � ' � *. ` ��' �. F ' ,` �t '}.� o '� �, � `4Y `'� `� * � ` � � / � � �,� �� , � �. t� � ' � ,� t: .� � P � �'A r r. `�� :' �, .� i, ''' ' a; r' � � �! #'� �� j ' — � + � �;� � ' � ' �' ',�" , � � � < „ ` �, . �' c� y � . t' ,/ � , '+ � '� y �,. �yr �,.� ; �., �" . .-� .v �i: ! �� „�' �,� �. �14:, �'� �,.y , .�r� -+, . . !. �r�,� - �.r�`� ,Y' 3� :- � � �! � � ,�'�-�' � �:'' ��.�� , . . ,;/� Federal Courthouse Tour Jan 17, 2012 .._..,�,T . � . _ . 7 � ��.� � �. �� . � ri�� qr.� � sq � { , ,�� L � ��.. �.�. HSR politics: The politician's vs. the public's view of the project - San F... http://www.examiner.com/transportation-po ^ �� a. HSR politics: The politician's vs. the public's view oi T# �Y ,�, Jobs Trade Credits: R. Cohen High-Speed Rail has become a political battle between Republicans and Democrats both at the state and federal level. With events chanc high-speed rail authority, with Van Ark's resiqnation yesterday, there could be change in the wind as far as the decisions where to spend th could be a more sprinkled approach considering the exclusive use of money for the central valley has been widely criticized. It could become the new North vs. South fight in Washington, D.C. a civil war if you will but just in California among Democrats. Both side federal dollars for their districts- either the Los Angeles end or the San Franciso end. See U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein's note to Jerry B http://www.feinstein.senate.qov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?I D=e2265894-22a0-4fff-abc8-a 151 fc583aec However the public does not view this project politically. Example, there are more than seven citizen groups who watch this project on a daily basis. Some were established initially as watchdog groups such as Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD) who prides itself on transparency and process and Community Coalition on High Speed Rail (cc-hsr.org) whose original mantra was "do it right or don't do iY' however as facts have come forward it's clear to everyone that there is a major problem with this high-speed rail project. Others groups, established later emerged primarily to oppose the project because the facts simply didn't justify the investment in the plan. All groups have slightly different agendas and approaches but they stay in touch. Frankly they have done a remarkable job, spending near nothing compared with the Authority's millions spent on public relations. An informal study of each group finds their political make-up was the same as their geography. In the Peninsula, they are composed of Democrats and Independents. Even in Senator Joe Simitian's district, 61 °/o stated they would vote to end the project if construction costs and funding were uncertain-- one would assume they are primarily Democrats. Those in the Central Valley were mostly Republican members which echo the party alignment of that region. Advei Strange alliances indeed: farmers, dairymen, religious leaders, artists, writers, professors, financial and economic experts and a ton of bu� marketing executives, venture capitalists and attorneys all working together without pay and without corporate sponsorship. Frankly, iYs a situation of smart people joining forces to examine the project, regardless of their party affiliation. This reflects the August 2( found the more people knew about the project, the more likely they wanted to ditch it. http://www.examiner.com/transportation-po�icv-in-sai h iqh-speed-rai I-poll-vs-the-authority-s-pol I In the last year, critical data came forward that deserved more than a passing glance and yet no tipping point, no line in the sand, no watei occurred to push the legislature to deliver the consequences they keep hinting about. The newly published report by the Independent Peer Review Group was to be the true watershed moment. After all, they are required by opinion about the state of the project. But no, this critical report had no effect on the Governor and several key legislators around the state expert Kenneth Orksi's article which questions why there has been no effect. http://www.newqeoqraphv.com/content/002612-a-devastatir • The Independent Peer Review Group concluded, "We cannot over-emphasize the fact that moving ahead on the HSR project withou adequate funding, without a definitive business model, without a strategy to maximize the independent utility and value to the State, a appropriate management resources, represents an immense financial risk on the part of the State of California." http://www.cahsrprq.� /CommentsonCHSRA2010FundinqPlan.pdf • Every single independent agency has major problems with the Authority's plan. See the first 90 seconds of this YouTube video of Se lists every independent agency (5 of them at the time) which has issues the project: http://www.voutube.com/user/derailhsr#p/u/144/l. In a world of sanity, one without politics, with major issues being stated by every state agency including the LAO and the Peer Review Gro legislature would have by now stopped the project in its tracks. The bottom line: the public—whether a democrat, independent or republic looking at the facts and come to the same conclusion as the peer group and others review bodies: the project should be stopped. The leg HSR politics: The politician's vs. the public's view of the project - San F... rail/ci 19596026 http: //www. examiner. com/transportation-po Even more conservative figures were provided by Independent Peer Review group member Lou Thompson. With more than 40 years of e transportation and international consulting, he has studied this issue for a long time. Thompson points out that the Authority quotes job ye newest draft business plan. "The basic rule of thumb being used might be 4000 people (jobs) total working on the project per five years. Of these about 1/3 might be c be indirect (suppliers etc) and about 1/3 could be anything, and they could be anywhere. But frankly any investment creates jobs, so build same as railways." So the initial operating segment might see 4000 jobs, maybe 16 to 20,000 project wide. Not 100,000 jobs for the first segment, not a millic life. ThaYs a big difference. Perhaps as suggested during the LaMalfa hearing, other infrastructure projects would be a better bet. Senator LaMalfa is not against job c continue to talk about the project but not against a deadline with funds continuing to be spent while it's being figured out. http://www.youtu /watch?v=pw61 wVQAfeU In the end it was voted down, it followed strict party lines, 3-6. This means it won't go to the floor for a vote. The public may be apolitical in their opinions on the subject, but for the most part the state legislature follows party lines. The Republican: to create bills to stop the project. It happens to fit their ideology but they are not burdened by the party pressure put on the Democrats. TI you don't see Democrats writing bills to remedy the situation -- fear of political repercussions. The party demands allegiance. If you don'1 heads of the party in California will not treat you well. I hear from an unnamed source in Sacramento, if you don't follow the party line, you visible committee assignments, no help in campaign contributions and if you are still around, perhaps only an office in a broom closet. An of vigor by the Democrats could be political campaign contributions? (More on this later.) It could be our legislators and our governor is waiting for someone else to pull the plug, like the federal government so they don't have to I� But perhaps it is something else, the hesitancy might be the need to keep union support and keep the campaign contributions flowing. Pe "independent expenditures" (IEs) that are dramatically influencing the outcome of this important issue and many others. It is well known b Practices Commission. (FPPC) http://www.fppc.ca.gov/ie/IEReport2.pdf "This practice is undermining California's campaign finance laws ; influencing the outcome of numerous statewide and legislative elections," says June 2008 FPPC report. It's a long report, but the first few This practice begs the question: are we creating a crop of politicians who are so dependent on this flow of money that even crystal clear lo do the right thing for their constituents and the state? Here's how it works: twenty-five IE committees funded by all types of unions and individuals, contributed $66 million to campaigns betweei contribution to such a committee from a land developer was more than $8.6 million. Sometimes these contributions are given to open seat candidates and make or break a campaign as demonstrated in the report. The contributions continue as the candidate grows in power anc important committees, then ever so subtly-- or not-- the pay back begins. Other states have banned these. Who is going to submit a bill to disallow this kind of contribution and put an end to the pressure of these seems again the people have to do it. (See the initiative that will be on the November ballot to restrain the flow of money through direct de members. http://www.sos.ca.qov/elections/ccrov/pdf/2011/mav/11040km.pdf) As the investigative advice goes: "follow the money". IYs hard to imagine what may be blinding the governor and the legislature from the h; simply not the right way to "run a railroad"; and needs to be stopped. IE contributions aside, our elected officials should remember, without never get elected again. If he governor won't plainly look at the facts then it's up to the legislature to do the right thing. StumbleUpon reddit AJ� L..I+��.1�.�� 17..1:4:.... C+..1.. C......1...- f]I.... C........:.....- CC f]...-4., �Kathy Hamilton, SF Transportation Policy Examiner January 12, 2012 - Like this? Subscribe to get instant updates. .� i CAL I F O RN IA FARM B U REAU F E D E RA^ OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL Z3OO RIVER PLAZA DRIVE, SACRAMENTO, CA �SH33-32�3 � PHONF (916) 561-5665 � FAx (9l Sent via U.S. Mail & I draftbpcomments@hsr January 16, 2012 California High-Speed Rail Authority 770 L Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Comments on the Draft 2012 Business Plan Dear Authority Members: The California Farm Bureau Federation ("Farm Bureau") is a non-governmenta profit, voluntary membership California corporation whose purpose is to protect and pr agricultural interests throughout the state of California and to find solutions to the prob the farm, the farm home and the rural community. Farm Bureau is California's largest f organization, comprised of 53 county Farm Bureaus currently representing more than i agricultural, associate and collegiate members in 56 counties. Farm Bureau strives to p: improve the ability of farmers and ranchers engaged in production agriculture to provic reliable supply of food and fiber through responsible stewardship of California's resour Farm Bureau submits these comments on the High-Speed Rail Authority ("Autl 2012 Draft Business Plan. The High-Speed Rail is an enticing dream—but an unattain in the real world. Farm Bureau is opposed to the project and believes the Draft Busine� underscores many of the reasons the proj ect is a fiscally reckless proposition for Califo Legal Consistency with Proposition lA A fundamental concern with the Business Plan is the plan's failure to demonstr; project can meet Proposition lA's requirement that the project can function without an subsidy—or that currently identified sources of funding can cover the project's estimat to $117.6 billion capital cost of construction (which translates to a projectied $177 to $� with interest through 2042).i Presently, except for an estimated $6 billion needed for t� construction of a so-called "Initial Construction Section" in the Central Valley, the sou r �• r ,� � � r.i • .� • • , � , r�n�.� � , T� � � � i •ii• .� i - CAL I F O RN IA FARM B U REAU F E D E RA^ OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL 2300 Rivi.f� I'� Aza DfzivF. SACizaM� N�ro, CA 95833-3293 � l'�ioNE (916) 561-5665 � FAx (9l footing the bill on the interest). This problem, in turn, bears directly on the viability of Speed Rail Project itself: The Authority must demonstrate that the project is financiall; that it can be completed on time and on budget, and that the proj ect will cover its own � expenses. At this point, however, both the Authority's Business Plan and its Novembe Funding Plan fail completely to carry this burden. The legal consequence of this failur Until the Authority can make a credible case for the High-Speed Rail Project, the State California not only should not, but in fact cannot issue bonds committing the State to p construction of the project. Major Gaps and Flaws in the Business Plan Reasons why the Authority's Business Plan and Funding Plan fail to satisfy the Proposition lA, and to show the project is financially feasible are myriad: Not least of Business Plan's ridership, revenue, and cost projections are based on implausible, inco� and unsupported assumptions. Without any guarantee of completion, or of compliance fiscal requirements of Proposition lA, there is little or nothing to prevent the project fr� becoming a permanent drain on state's coffers. The project would then divert billions � more necessary projects, improvements to existing transportation infrastructure, educat enforcement, health care, and essential social services. Worse yet, the Plan risks comrr state to the construction of the Central Valley segment of the project through some of t: best and most productive farmland, yet offers little more than a hope and a prayer that 7 for the rest of the proj ect will somehow magically appear in the future. In addition to these flaws, the Business Plan provides no credible answer to the fundamental question, from where the tens of billions of dollars needed for completion project will come. In partial answer to this question, the Authority's bullish demand fo make even (still subsidized) Japanese and French ridership numbers look anemic—yet radical cultural shift is to take root in California goes wholly unexplained. Beyond thi� no support for the Business Plan's assertions that taxpayers can count on cautious priv� investors, a deficit-ridden Congress, a crisis-driven state legislature, or cash-strapped lc governments to cover the overwhelming bulk of the project's capital cost for its compl� does the plan make a convincing case that the project itself could achieve the profits an on investment needed to attract partners or investors in the first place, or cover its oper; costs, as Proposition 1 A requires, once the proj ect is operational. Little or No Interest from Private Investors As for the appetite of private investors for investing of tens of billions of dollar, i i , r.� � rr i r i r� •� i� • , i r,i .� i CAL I F O RN IA FARM B U REAU F E D E RA^ OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL 2300 Rivr_f� I'� Aza D�zivF. SACizaMEN�ro, CA 95833-3293 � I'�ioNF (916) 561-5665 � Fax (91 respected academics, the most important of these extremely informative, thoroughly re thoughtful, and insightful papers, were also peer reviewed and endorsed by literally do; CEOs, business people, bankers, and investors well versed in and familiar with the bus world. Central to these papers is the notion that a high-speed rail that cannot withstand private sector scrutiny is not a feasible project consistent with Proposition lA's prohibi operating subsidies. Founded on this basic principle, the CCHSR papers show why the Speed Rail project is not in the best interest of the State of California or its citizens. Despite changes to the Business Plan and various adjustments since many of th� were completed, the CCHRS papers' core concerns remain valid and painfully relevanl current Business Plan. Indeed, considering the Authority's doubling and tripling of the Speed Rail's initial estimated cost from $43 billion to $98.5 billion, and even $117.6 b� the time since those papers were completed, it would appear that the CCHSR papers' c are now more valid than ever. In fact, these critical issues are so important that, in our the CCHSR papers—including, particularly, the October 12, 2010 paper, "Financial Ri California's Proposed High-Speed Rail Project"—should be required reading for anyor interested in the High-Speed Rail and worried about the well-being and long-term fisca our State. Recent Public Documents Highlight the High-Speed Rail's Many Challenges Praised for its honesty as to cost, if nothing else, the Business Plan shows the e� has no clothes—and this fact is increasingly corroborated by other public documents: � example, a recent State Auditor's report found the High-Speed Rail Authority has a$1� billion shortfall in identified federal funding, and a$7.5 billion total funding gap throu; With total expenditures since 1996 estimated in 2011 at $630 million,4 the State Auditc found the Authority has a poor track record on accountability, and found evidence of Surrounding California's High-Speed Rail Project," dated November 13, 2010; "Seven Deadly Financia: California's High-Speed Rail Authority," dated January 18, 2010; Brief Note No. l, "On the Likelihood Federal Construction Monies," dated June 28, 2011; Brief Note No. 2, "On High-Speed Rail Riders and Forecasts," dated June 6, 2011; Brief Note No. 3, "On Cost Overruns While Building Megaprojects," da 201 l; Brief Note No. 4, "On Construction Jobs in the High-Speed Rail Project," dated June 6, 201 l; Bri� 5, "On Permanent Jobs Created by the High-Speed Rail Project," dated June 6, 2011; `Brief Note No. 6: Speed Rail's Need for Operating Subsidies," dated June 6, 20ll; Brief Note No. 7, "On Private Capital j California's High-Speed Rail Train," dated June 6, 2011; "Will the High-Speed Rail Bene�it California'; Class," dated Apri14, 2011; "Financial Analysis of the Proposed High-Speed Rail Project," dated June 2 �(l !Y. . A 1'. 1 A '1 /1/�1 !� T ./1l�AA 1/�/ GGTT l (Y 1 T '1 A .1 . T. T 1 T 1 l .� i CAL I F O RN IA FARM B U REAU F E D E RA^ OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL 2300 Rivr_f� I'� AzA DfzivF. SACizaMrN�ro, CA 95833-3293 � I'�ioNE. (916) 561-5665 � Fax (9� bookkeeping inconsistencies and irregularities, management anomalies, contracting ex� and inappropriate spending.s It would seem, any mildly prudent person would have to himself, "Is this a good start to a$100, a$150, a$200 billion-dollar proj ect?" Another case in point, the High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group's recent report � Legislature on the HSR's November 3, 2011 Funding Plan included findings, (1) that tl Business Plan's ridership forecasts have "no apparently quantitative basis" and are cur� "unverifiable"; (2) that the project's currently estimated $98.5 billion capital cost will l increase; (3) that the project's initial focus on the Central Valley, and its reliance on teY billions of dollars of uncertain federal funding, magnify the risk to the State should the�� later fail to materialize, or should completion of subsequent segments later prove infea; (4) that other large funding gaps for project completion must be closed through a credil specific plan to attract private and local investment, before the project can be called "fi feasible."6 On page 4 of the Peer Review Group Report, there is the following discussion: The fact that the Funding Plan fails to identify any long-term funding commitr fundamental flaw in the program. Without committed funds, a mega-project o nature could be forced to halt construction for many years before additional fu could be obtained. The benefits of any independent utility proposed by the cu� Business Plan would be very limited versus the cost and the impact on the Stat finances. The CHSRA has also made it clear there will be no private sector in� project until the full public role is defined and funded, which means that signif private funding will not be available for many years. Moreover, we are not op that this situation will change in the foreseeable future. The Legislature could, rectify this by enacting a dedicate fuel tax or some other form of added user ch would not aggravate the existing State budget deficit. Lacking this, the projec� currently planned is not financially feasible.' Then, there is the Peer Review Group's ominous conclusion: [W]e [the Peer Review Group] cannot overemphasize the fact that moving ahe HSR project without credible sources of adequate funding, without a definitivE model, without a strategy to maximize the independent utility and value to the without appropriate management resources, represents an immense financial ri part of the State of California.... [T�he Peer Review Group cannot at this time recommend that the Legislature approve the appropriation of the bond proceed project.g .� i CAL I F O RN IA FARM B U REAU F E D E RA^ OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL 2300 Rivi.f� I'� ArA DfiivF. SACizaM� N-ro, CA 95833-3293 � l'HONE (916) 561-5665 � FAx (9l Yet another sign that the High-Speed Rail Project is in deep trouble can be infe� the fact that many of the same problems and uncertainties that prompted the LegislativE Analyst's Office to conclude that the High-Speed Rail project had reached a"critical jt May of 2011, remain largely unresolved in present Draft Business Plan.9 And, as if all were not enough, a field poll survey completed in November of 2011 found 59 percent said they would vote against a High-Speed Rail if given the opportunity to vote again t� Conclusion and Recommendations Farm Bureau recommends the State of California step back from the ledge on tl incredibly wasteful, grossly mismanaged and unnecessary project. If it is necessary to question to a re-vote of the people, so be it. In the meantime, what is certain is that a r� escalation of spending on the High-Speed Rail, even as the project unravels before us, : irresponsible—it's fiscally suicidal. Initially agnostics and even conditional supporters, we, along with a substantial apparently growing majority of citizens in California, have at length come around to th conviction that the High-Speed Rail is a bad idea. The Authority's Business Plan great strengthens and confirms the correctness of that view. Fortunately, the current transitic the Authority, gives us a11 a moment to reflect. The California Legislature should do tY thing, and it should do the right thing. It should cut funding to the proj ect now, until a business and funding plan is completed, or until the matter can be put back before Cali: voters—this time properly informed as to true costs and benefits and realistic prospects proj ect. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, ��:��!':��_. Justin E. Fredrickson Environmental Policy Analyst JEF cc: Honorable Doug LaMalfa Honorable Diane Harkey OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER MEMORANDUM January TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Chris Huot, Administrative Analyst III C� SUBJECT: High Speed Rail Procurement Packages Per your request I did some initial research into the four procurement p planned for the initial construction segment (ICS) of the High Speed Rai The attached slide refers to four separate procurement packages for Each package is anticipated to have its own RFQ/RFP process. It is no the slide referring to the procurement packages is from a HSR pre� made during the summer of 201 1. The only package the HSR Authority is currently requesting RFC Procurement Package # 1. This covers an area from approximately M the north to Easton in the South (Easton is located just south of the most city limits of Fresno). The final track alignment for this section has n selected pending the adoption of the final environmental impact repori Within the RFQ for package # 1 the Authority states this section will be miles in length and will include 12 grade separations, 2 viaducts, 1 tur one river crossing. Specifics for these items are not available within package. The Authority does include a project schedule, which states the RFf section will be issued in September 2012 and awarded in December rlAtnilArl ir�fnrm�tinn ic ryv�ilnhlA r�i ihlir-I�i fnr Prnr�i irAmAr�t Pnr�I�rynAC �k7 Janua #3. The Authority states package #2 will include 30 grade separations a miles elevated structures. Package #3, which is presented to extend to 1 of Wasco in unincorporated Kern County, is shown to include 1 separations, 4.5 miles of elevated structures and four river crossings. Th for package #4, however, do not include any preliminary informatior number of grade separations, with the Authority stating the grade seK and other mitigation is "dependent on alignment selected in NOD/h available funding remaining." Summary After initial research, it is my conclusion the Authority has not publicly c specific locations for any grade separations within Kern County o Bakersfield limits. Additionally, the Authority has referred to Proc Package #4, as dependent on available funding. Thus, making it s though any promises of grade separations or other mitigation is premat� Furthermore, although the Authority has publicly disclosed approximate of grade separations, river crossings and tunnels for other sections of thE final count is determined by the adopted alignment(s). The alignm based upon the final EIR document, and the Authority has not adopte EIR document. Moreover, the Authority plans to reissue the draft envirc review of the proposed segment between Fresno and Bakersfield in tr 2012. I NI TIA L CONSTR UCTION SECTION PR OCUR EMENT PA CKA GI NG _-�� ➢ Package #1: > $1.5 B ➢ Packages #2 to #4: $0.5B to $1B ➢ Package #5 Trackwork , �\ �To M««a --- , ,; — Fresno 5tati rR! I� m � ��- ! � i; �. . Procurement Package #1 � ,�_ <---� -�`. _ i�t "�;. �. !�) Fow e � � --,�,, - - � ..;. Hanf �_... iJ�. , � �� ,� � KINGS Procurement Packaae #2 0 _�; Kings; . . =Tulare= -Visalia l'i. Regional � � Station - " �� lare �� " TULARE"`., 1 � an ;> ,, Procurement P� �Na f io nn� \Wildlifey} /�j� • ReI�9e Ol �h � Allensworth r `A�I.len orth Slnfe Historic / (�colog nl � P a r A R eis e r v �, . 0 6 Mu �v . ;� ___"_ elano i Procuremer �sco �' , �I C'� .-. _ �. �. CO N TR A CTS ONE LARGE PACKAGE * • North of the San Joaquin River to East American Way • Through City of Fresno • 33 miles in length • 31 grade separations, 3.5 miles elevated structures, 1 retained cut and a major river crossing over the THREE MEDI UM PACKAGES * • From East American Way in South Fresno • South to approximately Lansing Avenue, near Corcoran • 35 miles in length • 30 grade separations and 3 miles elevated structures • From Lansing Avenue, near Corcoran • South to Perkins Avenue, near Wasco • 37 miles in length • 10 grade separations, 4.5 miles elevated structures and 4 river crossings • From Perkins Avenue South • Dependent on alignment selected in NOD/ROD and available funding remaining ONE LARGE PACKAGE • Trackwork for the full length of the Initial Construction Segment * All quantities are approximate and dependent on alignment selected in NOD/RC � S A K E I� S F I E L D CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director DATE: January 18, 2012 SUBJECT: PG&E UTILITY RELOCATION ON PANAMA LANE Referral No. 289 COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON REQUESTED THAT STAFF CONTACT PG&E TO ENC THEM TO EXPEDITE THE UTILITY RELOCATION RELATED TO THE PANAMA V\ PROJECT. Staff has contacted PG&E regarding the undergrounding of the existing utiliti east side of Wible Road from Berkshire Road to Panama Lane. The PG&E reprE for the Rule 20A (undergrounding district) has given City staff a timeline of Jur as the date when all utilities will be undergrounded and all poles cleared, gr major weather delays occur. Staff will continue to contact PG&E and the other impacted utility companies � intervals to encourage them to expedite the relocation of their existing c facilities to underground facilities along the east side of Wible Road from Berks to Panama Lane. � S A K E I� S F I E L D CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director DATE: January 19, 2012 SUBJECT: GRAFFITI ON P STREET, N/O BELLE TERRACE TO MING Referral No. 292 COUNCILMEMBER SALAS REQUESTED THAT STAFF ABATE GRAFFITI ON SIGNS IN OF SEQUOIA MIDDLE SCHOOL ON P STREET, EXTENDING TO MING AVENUE Graffiti staff performed a sweep for the area around both Sequoia Middle Sc Wayside Elementary School to abate graffiti. This included abatement of � Belle Terrace, South P Street and Ming Avenue. Paqe 1 of 2 STREETS DIVISION — WORK SCHEDULE Week of Jan. 23, 2012 — Jan. 27, 2012 Resurfacinq/Reconstructinq streets in the followinq areas: ResurFacing & Reconstructing streets in the area south of Planz Rd and west of Wible permitting) Miscellaneous Streets Division projects: Video inspection of City owned Sewer & Storm lines to evaluate condition of pipes Repairing Curb & Gutters at Bus Stops in various areas Crack Sealing on "H" St from California Ave to Brundage Ln (weather permitting) NOTE: If raining, there will be no street sweeping service and all street cleaning pers assigned to cleaning plugged drains and part circle culverts. THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Paqe 2 of 2 STREETS SWEEPING SCHEDULE Monday, Jan. 23, 2011 Between Coffee Rd. & Verdugo Ln. — Brimhall Rd., south to the Kern River boundary. Cul-De-Sacs, west of Windsong St., between Brimhall Rd. & Thistlewood Ct. City areas between Rosedale Hwy. & Stockdale Hwy. — Verdugo Ln. to the west City I Between Jenkins Rd. & Allen Rd. — Stockdale Hwy. & Birkenfeld Ave. Between Hosking Rd. & Astro Ave. — So. "H" St. & Union Ave. Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2011 City areas between Olive Dr. & Downing Ave. — Coffee Rd. & Knudsen Dr./Mohawk S Wy. From Weldon Ave. to Meany Ave. Between W. Columbus St. & 34t" St. — Chester Ave. & San Dimas St. Beween Union Ave. & Madison St. — Casa Loma Dr. & White Ln. Between Westwold Dr. & So. Laurelglen Blvd. — Gosford Rd. & Woodglen Dr. Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2011 City areas between Snow Rd. & Rosedale Hwy. — Jewetta Ave., west to the City limit. Between Ming Ave. & So. Laurelglen Blvd. — Coffee Rd. & EI Portal / Laurelglen Blvd Thursday, Jan. 26, 2011 Between Snow Rd. & Olive Dr. — Jewetta Ave., east to the canal boundary. Between Olive Dr. & Hageman Rd. — Jewetta Ave. & Calloway Dr. Between Niles St. & Sumner St. — Union Avenue & Beale Ave. Between Sumner St. & E. Truxtun Ave. — Beale Ave. & Brown St. Between Brundage Ln. & E. Belle Terrace St. — Union Ave. & Kincaid St. Between Camino Media & Kroll Wy. — Coffee Rd., west to the PG&E easement. Fridav, Jan. 27, 2011 Between Etchart Rd. & Pavilion Dr. -- Calloway Dr., west to the canal boundary. ,� �, at&t � January 11, 2012 City Manager Alan Tandy City of Bakersfieid 1600 Truxtun Avenue BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Dear City Manager Tandy, .. . ,. , � _�. �' � � .,.. . �.�,� , ,?. i'^r's AT&T . � AT&T's contracts with programmers for the content displayed on our U-verse TV service periodically expire, usually re-negotiated or extended with no interruption or change for our U-verse members. Contract(s) for programming listed below are set to expire as indicated, and AT&T is making every effort to reach a fair agr� continue carriage. However, if a reasonable agreement cannot be reached with such programmer(s), we wi have the rights to carry their programming on U-verse N. While the programming listed below will continue to be available to U-verse members so long as AT&T has i carry it, if a reasonable agreement cannot be reached with the programmer the programming will no longer at that time. March 2012: The impacted channels are: SStarMAX (channel 840 and 1840 in HD), ActionMAX (channel 836 and 1836 in HD), ActionMAX West (chanr 1837 in HD), ATMAX (channel 846 and 1846 in HD), Cinemax East (channel 832 and 1832 in HD), Cinemax W 833 and 1833 in HD), HBO Comedy (channel 810 and 1810 in HD), HBO Comedy West (channel 811 and 181: HBO East (channel 802 and 1802 in HD), HBO Family (channel 806 and 1806 in HD), HBO Family West (chanr 1807 in HD), HBO Latino (channel 814 and 1814 in HD), HBO Latino West (channel 815 and 1815 in HD), HBC (channel 808 and 1808 in HD), HBO Signature West (channel 809 and 1809 in HD), HBO West (channel 803 a HD), HBO Zone (channel 812 and 1812 in HD), HBO Zone West (channel 813 and 1813 in HD), HB02 (channe 1804 in HD), HB02 West (channel 805 and 1805 in HD), HDNet (channel 1105 in HD), HDNet Movies (channE HD), MoreMAX (channel 834 and 1834 in HD), MoreMAX West (channel 835 and 1835 in HD), OuterMAX (cF and 1844 in HD), Smithsonian Channel (channel 118 and 1118 in HD), Star India Plus (channel 3706), Thriller (channel 838 and 1838 in HD), ThrillerMAX V!/est (channel 839 and 1839 in HD), TVB-V (channel 3664), and � (channel 842 and 1842 in HD). Customers will be provided with written notification of the above: customer bills include a message referrin the Legal Notices in USA Today on the first and third Tuesday of each month, and to the AT&T website www versepro�ramin�changes, for information on programming changes. If you have any questions, please contact your local AT&T External Affairs manager,lan Bans on 661.327.65� Sincerely,